Evolution and the Gospel

[Maxel]

Trust me, I'm not angry . . . I'm amused by a man who refuses to use his brain.

Well, not being angry is good. Guess I read the wrong tone into your post- my bad.

[the Ogre]

Interesting, now I am unintelligent and flawed because my Faith is stronger than the arm of flesh. Oh, whatever shall I do. *rolls eyes*

Ignorance is bliss. No?

[the Ogre]

Well, not being angry is good. Guess I read the wrong tone into your post- my bad.

All good. BTW, I love boxers. They are the coolest dogs ever.

[bmy-]

I disagree with you here. Why? G-d is omni-powerful. A M-n with all power Wh- picked a methodology.

By using agency and by knowing all the options available, G-d chose a method to create the cosmos that evolution/science has yet to comprehend. Knowing the options is very important to G-dhood. One of those pupae things we all need to go through and why science is so important.

G-d can choose to do whatever H- wants. H- is G-d after all, why exclude On-self from one of the gifts given to fallen humanity? To think otherwise is to put G-d in a box.

Claustrophobia is horrible, why thrust it upon another?

I think that's an excellent point.. and it's why although we may be capable of some very God-like things.. we are not yet Exalted.

You would agree that logic is universal though, right?

[Maxel]

We are not simply in His image.. we are essentially in the Pupae stage of Godhood. We're of the race of Gods and -not creations- but offspring. Especially when dealing with logic.. the 'laws of logic' should hold true through out this universe. That includes Occam's Razor.

I agree with your premise about God following the laws of the universe. My problem with accepting that God follows Occam's Razor is that Occam's Razor may not be entirely correct. It may line up perfectly with what we know about the universe right now, but until we know everything I'd hesitate to say that God is bound by any one law as we understand it.

As an aside:

Just a tidbit of information -- we do have the technology to 'create a world' (think Mars).

Are you talking about terraforming, or the ability to actually round up enough chunks of space rock to form a planet? (Space stuff fascinates me)

[Gatorman]

Well, as it appears that I am a simpleton, a moron, unintelligent, and/or ignorant, I will take a break from the thread and get some sleep. But, let me leave you with this...

I have never once said Evolution is not true or that science is false. If someone can find a post where I said that, please post it here. Otherwise, please quit attributing positions that I have not taken to me.

[the Ogre]

Thank you for making my point Ogre. I don't need Evolution to line up with my faith. I don't need science to prove Heavenly Father. And, frankly,if I receive evidence through prayer, knowledge, lightning bolt, or those final days when we gain perfect knowledge that evolution, etc, is false, I will have NO worries. Because, the simple, undebatable fact for me is...

Heavenly Father, et al, created all creatures.

Then listen to me when I say evolution is not false. It is a fledgeling science that still needs refinement. Have you never listened to the vitriol of the evolution debate within the science community?

I think they are on the right track and are guided for the most part by the Light of Chr-st. Give them time and learn from them and accept all that is good according to the 13th article of faith instead of ignoring the good books and works of good men and women who doing all they can to pull humanity out of the dark-ages and into the light. Did you not notice that evolution and the restoration of the gospel came at the same time? It was a time to restore all things and this is understanding that we need.

Does evolution deny G-d? No, only some of the ignorant researchers who think science is the diametric-opposite to faith. Evolution is not. It is more a celebration of G-d, but weak-minded fools only think to accuse instead of finding the truth of the universe in every corner possible.

Stop placing nails in the cross of love and reach out without objection to what very well might be as truthful as the Laws of Thermodynamics and the truth in Relativity, Planks Constant, Brownian Motion, and Multi-variable Calculus (given time and a lot more research).

[bmy-]

Are you talking about terraforming, or the ability to actually round up enough chunks of space rock to form a planet? (Space stuff fascinates me)

Yes, i'm talking about terraforming a planet or even a large moon. I'm not talking about rounding up chunks of space rock even though that would be ridiculously cool.. just impractical.

We've had the technology to do that for quite a while now.. it's an expensive project and a dangerous one though. The best idea i've heard is this..

1) Send initial crew, tools, and materials to build a 'base' to Mars.

2) Let crew build said small base, take samples and do the lab work.

3) Have crew place machines around that produce greenhouse gas from naturally occurring gas to create stable atmosphere.

4) Robotic devices that were shipped with crew capable of building tools and repairing itself.

5) Said robotic devices build and spread more greenhouse-gas machines around.

6) Ship more raw materials, have robotic devices build, etc.

7) Wait until atmosphere is ready, then move in with the grass and crops.

Edited August 13, 2009 by bmy-

[the Ogre]

You would agree that logic is universal though, right?

Nope . . . it is a core philosophical position I base all my studies on: logic is merely another social-construction. All social-constructions are local and reducible.

Who opposed the logic of the greeks? Why other greeks, because they were there and knew the logic of their peers were only words and no more actual than other words and thus only rhetoric.

For me ill-logic, madness, and relativism are equivalent to and with logic. It's one mode of thought that attempts to imitate the thought of G-d while completely missing the point.

The thoughts of G-d fill the universe, logic only fills one portion of it. G-d does not need to be logical: H-'s G-d after all. Who are we to judge?

Think about this: it is by and through logic that most atheists base their rejection of G-d, because when you come down to it faith is G-d ignores and supersedes logic. Most of the contemporary logical-thinkers of our time are atheists or agnostics if we are lucky.

[the Ogre]

Well, as it appears that I am a simpleton, a moron, unintelligent, and/or ignorant, I will take a break from the thread and get some sleep. But, let me leave you with this...

I have never once said Evolution is not true or that science is false. If someone can find a post where I said that, please post it here. Otherwise, please quit attributing positions that I have not taken to me.

See, you still think we are opponents. Discussion and argument never needs a winner.

[Gatorman]

See, you still think we are opponents. Discussion and argument never needs a winner.

Actually, I believe we both say the same thing. What I don't understand is, when I am taking and have taken the same position as you say you have, why am I thinking differently? I have said exactly the same things.

[Dravin]

Okay folks, things look to have died down, this is good, lets not get the accusations of limited faith or limited usage of brains started again, accusations of limited thinking, faith or education don't further the discussion any (its immaterial to the substance of their statements, a valid point made by a 3rd grader is still valid and an invalid one made by a PhD is still invalid, the same would apply to a deeply considered position versus one that is not so). Rules 1 & 2 (for the thread) are in danger, and I'd argue rule 4 feels the occasional bullet rush by.

I gotta come to Gatorman's defense right now. He isn't saying Evolution is false, that it denies God, or there is no use learning and thinking about it. From what I can tell is, he won't know for 100% for certain until God (a being who can't lie and would surely know the answer) tells him one way or the other, and if he finds out that scientists were drawing incorrect or correct conclusions he won't bat an eyelash because either answer doesn't conflict with what he feels he knows (that God made man).

At least that's how I've read his latest posts.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Dravin

[Gatorman]

Thank you Dravin. That has been exactly my point.

Okay folks, things look to have died down, this is good, lets not get the accusations of limited faith or limited usage of brains started again, accusations of limited thinking, faith or education don't further the discussion any (its immaterial to the substance of their statements, a valid point made by a 3rd grader is still valid and an invalid one made by a PhD is still invalid, the same would apply to a deeply considered position versus one that is not so). Rules 1 & 2 (for the thread) are in danger, and I'd argue rule 4 feels the occasional bullet rush by.

I gotta come to Gatorman's defense right now. He isn't saying Evolution is false, that it denies God, or there is no use learning and thinking about it. From what I can tell is, he won't know for 100% for certain until God (a being who can't lie and would surely know the answer) tells him one way or the other, and if he finds out that scientists were drawing incorrect or correct conclusions he won't bat an eyelash because either answer doesn't conflict with what he feels he knows (that God made man).

At least that's how I've read his latest posts.

[Traveler]

the Ogre or snow - Can you please review this thread and find where I have ever stated that Evolution was not a possible answer? Or, where I stated that Science was false or foolish? Instead, I believe I have stated the following:

1 - Evolution is one possible answer to how Heavenly Father created us.

2 - Until such time as he tells us otherwise or until we gain the perfect knowledge, we can not know for certain.

3 - If Heavenly Father used Evolution to create us, then evolution, and science in this case, are right.

4 - If when we gain the knowledge of how Heavenly Father created us, we find evolution had not part, then evolution and science were wrong.

5 - Outside of evolution, science can make compelling arguments, theories, and claims of fact. If those things are supported when we gain that knowledge, then science was right. if not, then science was wrong.

I acknowledge that science could be right. I acknowledge that science is a valid field to pursue. But, I further acknowledge that science can not answer with 100% certainty Heavenly Father's methods or will. As such, when we gain that knowledge, if it is contrary to our scientific understanding, I have NO issue rejecting the science. I will trust in the Lord.

One point I would like to make – my friend – and please do not think that I mean anything personal towards you --- But in the field of seeking and finding truth and then being honest and straightforward or deliberately deceiving and deceptive; mankind has a long recorded history. In that long recorded history followers of religious pundits are far far more likely to be beguiled and deceived than those that follow scientific pundits.

From my experience as an scientist and engineer, which is biased, but in most cases I have encountered someone that is closed minded and unwilling to consider possibilities and learn something - that such a stance is most likely (not always because there are exceptions) to maintain ignorance because of religious and not scientific background.

This is very strange to me – It does seem to me that if we worship of G-d of truth and are committed to truth – there is no danger in pursuing knowledge and understanding and considering vast possibilities and holding dear to those that “prove out” and have merit and are productive; even if such concepts challenge our paradigm of things. As I understand a follower of Christ they are teachable (like a child) – not unyielding dogmatic closed minded never considering something kind of person.

I am grateful for one aspect of evolution – it demonstrates to me a great deal about someone’s faith and understand of G-d so far as being able to take religious principles and apply such knowledge to living day to day in real life. When someone rejects evolution on religious principles alone it does indeed tell me a great deal about their faith in their G-d and the “kind” of G-d or things they worship.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Okay folks, things look to have died down, this is good, lets not get the accusations of limited faith or limited usage of brains started again, accusations of limited thinking, faith or education don't further the discussion any (its immaterial to the substance of their statements, a valid point made by a 3rd grader is still valid and an invalid one made by a PhD is still invalid, the same would apply to a deeply considered position versus one that is not so). Rules 1 & 2 (for the thread) are in danger, and I'd argue rule 4 feels the occasional bullet rush by.

I gotta come to Gatorman's defense right now. He isn't saying Evolution is false, that it denies God, or there is no use learning and thinking about it. From what I can tell is, he won't know for 100% for certain until God (a being who can't lie and would surely know the answer) tells him one way or the other, and if he finds out that scientists were drawing incorrect or correct conclusions he won't bat an eyelash because either answer doesn't conflict with what he feels he knows (that God made man).

At least that's how I've read his latest posts.

100% certainty??? No true Christian or scientist is attempting such a thing – We all live by “faith”. Alma encourages us to plant a seed and then we will begin to understand if it is good or not. But 100% certainty should never be necessary before making intelligent and moral decisions whether or not to pursue one idea or concept over another.

If we cannot champion the best that we have received or come to understand – how can we call ourselves disciples of any good cause – including G-d and Christ?

Even sacred scripture tells us that we learn line upon line upon line; precept upon precept upon precept.

The Traveler

Edited August 13, 2009 by Traveler

[the Ogre]

If we cannot champion the best that we have received or come to understand – how can we call ourselves disciples of any good cause – including G-d and Christ?

No no no . . . I am the one who brought us to this great wo pronounced by those angelic moderators on high. One can always defend intelligence, one can not be direct or creative in illustrating what is the true problem in the OP.

It's like saying the real motivation for the current "birther" movement is racism. It's true, but it also pisses the racist-birther people off.

[Traveler]

Actually, I believe we both say the same thing. What I don't understand is, when I am taking and have taken the same position as you say you have, why am I thinking differently? I have said exactly the same things.

What is your position – are you willing to utilize the principles of evolution as it applies to the pursuit of medical advances and treatments? Do you believe evolution is a worthwhile subject to be taught in schools or in your home or do you believe evolution should not be taught in any form to our children?

The Traveler

[Traveler]

No no no . . . I am the one who brought us to this great wo pronounced by those angelic moderators on high. One can always defend intelligence, one can not be direct or creative in illustrating what is the true problem in the OP.

It's like saying the real motivation for the current "birther" movement is racism. It's true, but it also pisses the racist-birther people off.

Sorry you lost me - I am not getting what you are trying to say.

The Traveler

[Gatorman]

I believe that the THEORY of evolution is worth teaching. I believe it is correct to teach it in school as a theory and to not get into suggesting it is 'nature' or 'God' doing it. At home, we can then follow up that the theory is one possible method for Heavenly Father's method of creation.

What is your position – are you willing to utilize the principles of evolution as it applies to the pursuit of medical advances and treatments? Do you believe evolution is a worthwhile subject to be taught in schools or in your home or do you believe evolution should not be taught in any form to our children?

The Traveler

[Dravin]

100% certainty??? No true Christian or scientist is attempting such a thing – We all live by “faith”. Alma encourages us to plant a seed and then we will begin to understand if it is good or not. But 100% certainty should never be necessary before making intelligent and moral decisions whether or not to pursue one idea or concept over another.

I'm not saying it is. I don't know for 100% certainty that my Mother loves me, I've got loads of evidence to that effect but it could all be a ruse, she actually detests me but for whatever reasons has chosen to project the image that she loves me instead of her true feelings, this is a possible (though not necessarily likely) scenario. Does this mean I shouldn't operate under the conclusion that considering the weight of evidence she loves me? Nope. Likewise I don't think those who after considering the weight of evidence operate under the conclusion that evolution is how things happened should refrain from doing so either because they don't know for 100% certain.

I'd like to point out my defense of Gatorman was because I felt people were mistaking his actual position ( I may or may not be mistaken in this perception), I wasn't trying to make a defense of the position itself and what one might infer from it.

[Dravin]

No no no . . . I am the one who brought us to this great wo pronounced by those angelic moderators on high. One can always defend intelligence, one can not be direct or creative in illustrating what is the true problem in the OP.

That my understanding of the scriptures and the doctrines that are causing the block for me is incorrect? Or not interpreting the scriptures though the lens of scientific understanding much like one interprets the Bible through the lens of Book of Mormon understanding? Both have been pointed out as possible reasons why I'm failing to reach the correct conclusion, admittedly that's possible reasons instead of actual reasons but if I recognized that such was actually the case then there wouldn't be much of problem for me, there wouldn't be any blocks and this thread wouldn't exist.

That would be the true problem behind the resistance to accepting evolution as the 'tool' used for creating man would it not? Or am I missing something?

Edit: Ah, I forgot something: The willingness to believe in dogma despite scientific evidence to the contrary?

Edited August 13, 2009 by Dravin

[Traveler]

That my understanding of the scriptures and the doctrines that are causing the block for me is incorrect? Or not interpreting the scriptures though the lens of scientific understanding much like one interprets the Bible through the lens of Book of Mormon understanding? Both have been pointed out as possible reasons why I'm failing to reach the correct conclusion, admittedly that's possible reasons instead of actual reasons but if I recognized that such was actually the case then there wouldn't be much of problem for me, there wouldn't be any blocks and this thread wouldn't exist.

That would be the true problem behind the resistance to accepting evolution as the 'tool' used for creating man would it not? Or am I missing something?

Edit: Ah, I forgot something: The willingness to believe in dogma despite scientific evidence to the contrary?

For me, I do not like being against something. Being against something seems to be counter productive. For me it is about being for something. I like having the value of being able to say this is what I stand for. I have done my "homework" and this I find worth while and benificial.

The Traveler

[Dravin]

For me, I do not like being against something. Being against something seems to be counter productive. For me it is about being for something. I like having the value of being able to say this is what I stand for. I have done my "homework" and this I find worth while and benificial.

The Traveler

It kinda depends how you look at it. One person can say against evolution, another can say they're for a more literal reading of the scriptures. Likewise one could say you are for evolution, another can say you are against a more literal reading of the scriptures. Its kinda like the whole pro-life vs. pro-choice nomenclature, people like to think they are for something. For the record I'd say I'm not sure about evolution not that I'm against it (I don't have a problem with it being taught in schools or think those who believe it are horribly flawed even if they do read the scriptures a little differently than myself). :shrug:

The main point of that post is I don't see Ogres complaint that he can't point out the problems in the OP. You can be direct, I the OP voiced those problems, admittedly they probably could have been more direct instead of musing and the reiteration was more direct (though still not totally so but I explained why as they're coming from me). If creative is a euphemism for creative/subtle condescension or insults then yeah the whole point of the rules for the thread was to prevent that, if it isn't a euphemism I'm not sure why he couldn't try to make his point in haiku or using a metaphor about a yellow submarine that fires tacos, he may have troubles with others understanding the latter, but he could still do it. Heck, I'll even take a crack at the former:

  Reading scriptures wrongdiscard dogma, seek science    enlightenment find 

P.S. I'm assuming he's complaining about the ground rules for the thread or the culture of the board.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Dravin

[Gatorman]

For me, I do not like being against something. Being against something seems to be counter productive. For me it is about being for something. I like having the value of being able to say this is what I stand for. I have done my "homework" and this I find worth while and benificial.

The Traveler

Agreed Traveler. It is why I get frustrated at my stance being questioned as stupid, silly, not thinking, etc. I have studied. I have thought. I have studied enough about evolution and the scriptures to be comfortable in my stance. And, my stance is this. I have more proof and evidence that the scriptures are true than I do that evolution is true. Some of that proof is personal. I hold the 'evidence' found about scriptures in greater esteem than I do science. That is not to say that science is 'bad'. It is simply that my faith is greater than science. Now, as I have said, this does not mean that I do not believe that evolution is possible. Simply that there is not enough evidence for me to consider it fact. It is merely a theory. But, for me, the idea that Heavenly Father created the earth, man, and all animals is fact. There is just no proof of what method.

So, I stand FOR the scriptures. I stand FOR my Heavenly Father. I believe he did it. I do not know how. And, in the end, the how is not important to my life or my purposes.

[Guest missingsomething]

Agreed Traveler. It is why I get frustrated at my stance being questioned as stupid, silly, not thinking, etc. I have studied. I have thought. I have studied enough about evolution and the scriptures to be comfortable in my stance. And, my stance is this. I have more proof and evidence that the scriptures are true than I do that evolution is true. Some of that proof is personal. I hold the 'evidence' found about scriptures in greater esteem than I do science. That is not to say that science is 'bad'. It is simply that my faith is greater than science. Now, as I have said, this does not mean that I do not believe that evolution is possible. Simply that there is not enough evidence for me to consider it fact. It is merely a theory. But, for me, the idea that Heavenly Father created the earth, man, and all animals is fact. There is just no proof of what method.

So, I stand FOR the scriptures. I stand FOR my Heavenly Father. I believe he did it. I do not know how. And, in the end, the how is not important to my life or my purposes.

Thats it exactly - just because one does not believe that science is superior does not mean that one has not thought it out. They have, but have reached different conclusions. It does NOT mean they are inferior for doing so.